Do you think LGBT characters will feature more prominently?

[BRINX01]

Why is it that every time a TV character is announced as being LGBTQ, people automatically assume the character isn't likeable, interesting, or useful to the story in their own right and just there for the sake of it? Why is "Prove to me why they matter here" the default reaction, before we've even seen a frame of footage?

I'm not complaining about every character on TV, and I did not intend to imply that the character would be automatically unlikeable. I am questioning why Discovery didn't let people get invested in the characters before throwing it out there.

 

[Balok's Decoy]

I'm not complaining about every character on TV, and I did not intend to imply that the character would be automatically unlikeable. I am questioning why Discovery didn't let people get invested in the characters before throwing it out there.

Because LGBTQ people are underrepresented on TV. I really don't see the harm in the show letting gay people know, "Hey, we know you're basically ignored and erased by pop culture at almost ever turn. We're going to have a character who is like you, because you're a part of the future too."

 

[BRINX01]

Part of Gene's vision was the complete absence of gays, one of the creators of TNG was essentual thrown off the team for pushing a single story that would depict a gay Starfleet officer.

Was not aware of that tidbit, though not really surprised based on Gene's apparent reputation with the ladies.

There's never been a reluctance to show straight characters up until now. If the gay character isn't in some way "pointed out" as such to the audience then how is the character going to be gay in-universe?

I would assume that we might figure it out on our own at some point, I guess.

While you can take it too far, I basically feel the opposite. The people on the ship should not be uniform in their positions on a variety of matters, it isn't diversity if everyone thinks the same. Hopefully the people on the ship will have a wide multiplicity of views on any given subject.

I didn't say they would all think the same, I said that having seen so much diversity they shouldn't care about another crew member's sexual preference. Granted, they haven't specifically said that the crew members would be biased or unbiased either.

On different matters some of them are going to be "anti."Sexuality is part of being Human.

I wouldn't know, being a robot from the future.

Maybe Hollywood writer should refrain from pushing their personal philosophies on the job.

Maybe.

 

[m.lp.ql.m]

Not what I said. What I was saying is that although it's socially relevant now, in the Star Trek imaginary future I don't personally think any of the starfleet crew members I've seen would care about any other person's sexual preference. They've seen enough diversity at that point for it to no longer be anything to call attention to. The fact that the show runners immediately called attention to it suggests that they may take a point of view that might be out of place in that future. I want the show to be about space exploration. If there are going to be gay, transgender, or any other variety or characters on the show I just want them to be relevant to the crew, not something thrown in to be flaunted as intentionally controversial. In other words, make the gay character a likeable person, not just gay. If they had started the show and made all of the characters interesting and said that maybe down the line one of them would be revealed as gay, I don't think I would have complained.

Ah, OK, I see, and I agree with you. You're making a distinction between what the characters think and do, in universe, opposed to what present day creators and viewers see on screen. In universe, I do suspect that crew members won't care about anothers' sexual preferences, and we'll see that on screen. However, because the show is being broadcast now, what the creators, and other viewers, tell us about the show will likely make note of a certain character's sexual preference. For good reason, mainly because it's a social issue that exists in now.

 

[BRINX01]

Because LGBTQ people are underrepresented on TV. I really don't see the harm in the show letting gay people know, "Hey, we know you're basically ignored and erased by pop culture at almost ever turn. We're going to have a character who is like you, because you're a part of the future too."

I didn't say not to do it. I'm saying that it really shouldn't have to be specifically pointed out based on the setting. To me the flexible sexuality roles are basically already implied on Star Trek. I guess we'll see. I just hope it will be a good show and on for a long time.

 

[Guy Gardener]

CBS All Access wants to eat at Netlix's Progressive audience.

Backward ultra conservative Christian homophobic rednecks need not apply?

Ooo.

I read something about trump broadening the scope of the FCC to police streaming services, or I read the title to an article I couldn't be bothered with... No more shower scenes in Orange is the New Black?

I could live with that.

But I still haven't seen a dragon rape a masterdon yet.

 

[BRINX01]

CBS All Access wants to eat at Netlix's Progressive audience.

Backward ultra conservative Christian homophobic rednecks need not apply?

Ooo.

Aha. I hadn't considered that, I guess. What's NetLix? Is that Neelix's cousin? Also, licking nets in public is illegal in nine states.

I read something about trump broadening the scope of the FCC to police streaming services, or I read the title to an article I couldn't be bothered with... No more shower scenes in Orange is the New Black?

I could live with that.

But I still haven't seen a dragon rape a masterdon yet.

I guess that doesn't surprise me too much. There's been some talk of tightening up the streaming service guidelines for a few years.

 

[Nyotarules]

CBS All Access wants to eat at Netlix's Progressive audience.

Backward ultra conservative Christian homophobic rednecks need not apply?

Ooo.

I read something about trump broadening the scope of the FCC to police streaming services, or I read the title to an article I couldn't be bothered with... No more shower scenes in Orange is the New Black?

I could live with that.

But I still haven't seen a dragon rape a masterdon yet.

Maybe they can start with banning stories where men cheat on their wives, get divorced and get married x number of times. That should cut down the political storylines we see on netflix to er... zero....
The so called Moral Majority are such Hippos (hypocrites)

 

[Jedman67]

Not what I said. What I was saying is that although it's socially relevant now, in the Star Trek imaginary future I don't personally think any of the starfleet crew members I've seen would care about any other person's sexual preference. They've seen enough diversity at that point for it to no longer be anything to call attention to. The fact that the show runners immediately called attention to it suggests that they may take a point of view that might be out of place in that future. I want the show to be about space exploration. If there are going to be gay, transgender, or any other variety or characters on the show I just want them to be relevant to the crew, not something thrown in to be flaunted as intentionally controversial. In other words, make the gay character a likeable person, not just gay. If they had started the show and made all of the characters interesting and said that maybe down the line one of them would be revealed as gay, I don't think I would have complained.

Star Trek isn't designed to appeal to the characters, it's meant to appeal to modern-day viewers.

 

[Balok's Decoy]

Was not aware of that tidbit, though not really surprised based on Gene's apparent reputation with the ladies.

That bit of supposed TNG history is extremely simplistic and not all that accurate. Much of the early TNG writer restrictions (as in, "no gay stories") was influenced heavily by Gene's mustache-twirling villain of a lawyer, Leonard Maislich, than anything else. If you watch Chaos on the Bridge or listen to interviews with people like David Gerrold on Mission Log, they all have choice words about Maislich and his influence in TNG season 1. It wasn't all Maislich (I think one of the writers said something homophobic when Gerrold pitched a story that dealt with the AIDS epidemic), but it wasn't like Gene was a Baptist preacher either.

Eventually TNG did sort of address LGBTQ people in the episode "The Outcast." If you listen to Soren's speech at the end, that could have come out of any contemporary movie about gay rights.

Even way back in the TOS days, Takei has said that he and Gene had discussed bringing in a gay character, and that while Gene wanted to do that, he felt he couldn't get away with it given how far he was already pushing the censors. All of this is just to say, the history of Star Trek and LGBTQ portrayal is...complicated. Not great, not where it should be (yet), but not as simple as "Gene's vision was that gay people shouldn't be in Star Trek."

 

[Tenacity]

I read something about trump broadening the scope of the FCC to police streaming services

My understanding is Trump's new FCC chairman intends to change net-neutrality regulation in the areas of access and fees, but I've heard nothing on controlling content.

That bit of supposed TNG history is extremely simplistic and not all that accurate.

YMMV.

 

[BRINX01]

Star Trek isn't designed to appeal to the characters, it's meant to appeal to modern-day viewers.

I am aware of that. According to an excerpt I saw with Gene addressing some fans, he made the show primarily to entertain himself, and he's not here to ask. I do plan on giving the writers time to develop the show, and they haven't given much background on the characters yet. They could take some very interesting directions with them that I honestly haven't thought of myself.

 

[Tenacity]

In the Star Trek future, no one should care about those issues in Starfleet.

Why? And what happen if people do? Maybe you would in some fashion be punished for commenting or disagreeing, expressing your own view point, your department head would call you in and chew you out?

I said that having seen so much diversity they shouldn't care about another crew member's sexual preference.

But we've seen and heard people on previous series commenting and gossiping on other peoples dating and sex lifes, why would this stop in the new series?

My position is that Starfleet is made up of hundreds of species, who have thousands of cultures. And while you can suppose a code of conduct within Starfleet, that isn't going to totally control how people think and express themselves based upon the culture they were raised in.

 

[Balok's Decoy]

Maybe you would in some fashion be punished for commenting or disagreeing, expressing your own view point, your department head would call you in and chew you out?

Yup. You sure would.

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

 

[Balok's Decoy]

My position is that Starfleet is made up of hundreds of species, who have thousands of cultures. And while you can suppose a code of conduct within Starfleet, that isn't going to totally control how people think and express themselves based upon the culture they were raised in.

This was true of Worf in at least one episode. He made comments about how jokers in poker was a "woman's game" and when confronted by Deanna and Beverly, he admitted that women were inherently weaker. He definitely has sexist viewpoints, but it's written into the show so the writers can point to it and say "See this? Don't do this." I think there's a reluctance to make Starfleet officers bigoted or sexist or homophobic, unless it's specifically to call them out on it. For the reason @BRINX01 gave, which is that humanity is supposedly more evolved than that by the 23rd/24th century. I think they give more leeway to alien species.

 

[Tenacity]

Worf is a good example of what I'd like to see. His refusal to donate cells to a dying Romulan, engaging in a duel with the head of the house that killed his parents (which he was reprimanded for), his obvious glee at the thought of executing prisoners (fist full of data), his (often correct) advise to take the martial approach.

Worf adhered to his Klingon beliefs. Now, give each new character a unique and distinctive position from each other and don't let them "mush" into having a common set of standards and beliefs.

I think there's a reluctance to make Starfleet officers bigoted or sexist or homophobic, unless it's specifically to call them out on it.

Picard was never called out for his raging bigotry against people from Earth's past. Crusher wasn't called out when her lover changed from a male to a female and she then rejected the lover for that reason. Riker wasn't called out for having a negative opinion of the culture in Outcast.

People should be allowed (on the show) to have personal opinions and societal positions that come from being apart of a distinct culture.

Tuvok very much had a different personal philosophy from the others aboard Voyager.

 

[Balok's Decoy]

Picard was never called out for his raging bigotry against people from Earth's past. Crusher wasn't called out when her lover changed from a male to a female and she then rejected the lover for that reason. Riker wasn't called out for having a negative opinion of the culture in Outcast.

Well I didn't mean called out specifically by another character -- oftentimes it's the writers making it clear, contextually, that X point of view is not very enlightened or progressive. Crusher's rejection of the Trill definitely felt bigoted when I saw it, and Crusher admits that she, or really "humanity", has not yet evolved beyond those kinds of hangups. Riker wasn't called out for his view of the culture in Outcast because the culture in Outcast was bigoted and, in my opinion, a metaphor for our own culture's oppression of LGBTQ people. There was no calling out required -- Picard gave him a talking to about the Prime Directive and that was sufficient. I don't recall Picard having "raging bigotry" against humans of the past.

 

[Guy Gardener]

Yup. You sure would.

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

Romulans, hated and despised Romulans, who murdered Billions of UFP citizens a century earlier... ARE VULCAN!!!!!

Give the man a minute to process.

"Sigh"

It's Like when we found out that Trump was a Russian secret agent there in the white house following orders from the Kremlin.

Americans just needed time to figure out how to deal congenially with a leader who's rectum is holding on to Vladimir Putin's forearm like a desperate mollusc.

 

[The Old Mixer]

Crusher's rejection of the Trill definitely felt bigoted when I saw it

Is it bigotry to have one's own sexual preferences? It may be bigotry to not accept somebody else's preferences...but isn't Beverly entitled to decide who she does or doesn't want a relationship with?

 

[Balok's Decoy]

Is it bigotry to have one's own sexual preferences? It's may be bigotry to not accept somebody else's preferences...but isn't Beverly entitled to decide who she does or doesn't want a relationship with?

That's a very good point. I stand corrected.